Skip to main content
Glama

Htmltext

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test. No candidate is active right now (the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26), so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question or request in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that candidate routing improvements are enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also states the tool falls back to nothing and is a full working router, giving agents an honest picture of its experimental nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the essential beta identity and every sentence contributes: what it is, current state, usage instruction, and fallback behavior. The details about no active candidate and retirement evidence are relevant to how an agent should treat it right now.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for an experimental variant: it explains current parity, usage, and the absence of a fallback. It relies on the stable ask_pipeworx sibling for exact response-shape details, which is acceptable given the strong cross-reference, but makes the description slightly less self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented, and the question parameter already lists its aliases. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, but with candidate routing improvements. It explicitly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx by labeling itself as the experimental edge.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies it is not a fallback but a fully functional router, which directly addresses when and how to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Htmltext toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or nested roles: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx currently, ask_pipeworx_grounded uses the same router, and polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edges both surface mispricings. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are also tightly coupled, making tool selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: verb-first names like extract_links and discover_tools coexist with noun-first product names like polymarket_edges and entity_profile, plus bare verbs like remember and forget. This breaks the predictable verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server named Htmltext, and most tools are unrelated to HTML processing. Even as a broad data-research server, the count exceeds the usual 3-15 sweet spot and includes meta-tools, near-duplicate query modes, and niche utilities that bloat the surface.

Completeness3/5

The set is unusually broad—covering data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, HTML extraction, AI visibility, and package scanning—but no single domain is fully fleshed out. HTML tools only do extraction, prediction-market tools lack a simple market browser, and there is no general web fetch tool. Most gaps can be worked around via ask_pipeworx, but the surface feels like a grab bag rather than a cohesive lifecycle.

Resources